Standing Committee D

[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]

Civil Partnership Bill [Lords]

Frank Cook: I understand that my co-Chairman gave permission at a previous sitting for hon. Members to divest themselves of their top item of clothing. I have no intention of rescinding that agreement.Clause 83 Formation of civil partnership by registration

Clause 83 - Formation of civil partnership by registration

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McGuire: I wish to make a few comments. First, we are all delighted to see you back, Mr. Cook. Such stoicism is to be commended and proves that British politicians are every bit as resilient as American former Presidents.
 The Scottish clauses in the Civil Partnership Bill achieve the same policy purpose as part 2, but have been drafted to reflect the special characteristics of Scots law. The purpose of the Government's amendments is to ensure complete legal consistency between rights that accrue to civil partners and married couples. 
 I trust that we shall have an opportunity this morning to consider not just the Scottish provisions but the Northern Irish provisions as we are discussing three jurisdictions in the Bill. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84 - Eligibility

Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 38, line 30, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2),'.—[Jacqui Smith.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Anne McGuire: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in clause 84, page 38, line 36, leave out
'of understanding the nature of civil partnership' 
 and insert 'of— 
 (i) understanding the nature of civil partnership, or 
 (ii) validly consenting to its formation'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 53 to 57. 
 Government new clause 1—Separation. 
 Government new clause 4—Succession: legal rights arising by virtue of civil partnership.

Anne McGuire: The amendments relate to the Scottish provisions in part 3 of the Bill, which are consequential on the creation of civil partnerships. Government amendments Nos. 52 to 56 concern the capacity of someone to enter a civil partnership. At present, clause 84 sets out that in order to enter a civil partnership, a person must understand
''the nature of civil partnership''.
 Government amendment No. 52 provides that a person must also be capable of 
''validly consenting to its formation''.
 The purpose of the amendment is to amend clause 84(1)(e) to mirror the provisions in section 5(4)(d) of the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977.

Alan Duncan: What does that mean in terms of a read-across to mental capacity?

Anne McGuire: May I return to that point in a few minutes?
 Clause 90 provides that if someone objects to a civil partnership on the grounds that either of the civil partners is incapable of understanding the nature of a civil partnership, such an objection must be accompanied by a supporting certificate signed by a registered medical practitioner. Government amendment No. 56 to clause 90 provides that the requirement of evidence as indicated above also applies when an objection is made on the grounds that one of the parties is incapable of validly consenting to a civil partnership. The policy 
 intention of the Bill is that the process for entering a civil partnership mirrors that for civil marriage. It is therefore important that that aspect of the 1977 Act is replicated for civil partners. 
 The Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament recommended that the Scottish Executive's position on capacity to consent be reconsidered in the interests of ensuring parity in the protection available to civil partners, compared with married couples. The Deputy Minister for Justice made a commitment to the Justice 1 Committee to amend the Bill so that the provisions mirror in their entirety those that exist for civil marriage. 
 I want to come on to adoptive and half-blood relationships. The amendments add a further two subsections to clause 84 to confirm that half-blood relationships and adoptive relationships are included within the degrees of relationship specified in paragraph 1 of schedule 11. That is the policy intention. At present, it is not clear that adoptive and half-sibling relationships are within the prohibited degrees. The Bill as drafted could allow a man to form a civil partnership with his adoptive brother or half-brother. That is not the policy intention. The policy intent is that, since people in such a relationship cannot marry, they should similarly not be able to enter a civil partnership.

Alan Duncan: Can the Minister confirm that that excludes foster children and wards of court?

Anne McGuire: My understanding is that it does exclude foster children and wards of court.
 The amendment will mean that adoptive and half-blood relationships are included within the prohibited degrees, as is the case with marriage. 
 Government amendment No. 57 is intended to offer some clarity in clause 120. At present, clause 120 sets out that if a couple register as civil partners in Scotland despite not meeting the eligibility criteria detailed in clause 84, the civil partnership will be void, meaning that it will be treated as never having taken place. The amendment provides that where a couple are registered as civil partners in Scotland and, although eligible to do so, 
''either of them did not validly consent'',
 the civil partnership will be void. 
 Like married couples, civil partners will be able to apply to the court for a civil partnership to be made void. That exists in Scots common law. The purpose of the amendment is simply to make it clear in law that a civil partnership can be made void by the court if either party did not validly consent to its formation. The Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament made representations on that point and the Deputy Minister for Justice agreed to lay the amendment. 
 On judicial separation, new clause 1 is intended to add back into the Bill a clause that was removed on Report in the House of Lords. It is an important clause that provides an opportunity to those in civil partnerships that is already available to married couples. The clause provides that civil partners may 
 apply to the Court of Session or the sheriff court for a decree of separation. The court may grant such a decree if satisfied that there are grounds justifying such a separation. 
 Clause 118 is consequential to this clause. It provides that if civil partners have a decree of separation and subsequently decide to dissolve their civil partnership, they may apply to the court, citing the same evidence on which the degree of separation was based. The court can treat a decree of separation as proof of the facts under which the decree was granted. However, that does not entitle a court to grant a decree of dissolution of a civil partnership without receiving evidence from the civil partner seeking the dissolution. 
 I come now to legal rights of succession. New clause 4 seeks to ensure that civil partners have legal rights of succession in a similar way to spouses. Legal rights are covered by common law in Scotland. The Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 is amended by schedule 28 to ensure that civil partners will have prior rights of succession. That is an important right that civil partners will require; it is a complex area of law and detailed consideration has been given as to how the common law could best be captured in the provisions for civil partners. 
 Before I finish I shall deal with the read-across of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) on mental incapacity. If a person is incapable of consenting to a civil partnership for whatever reason, that partnership will not be valid, which includes situations where a person suffers from mental incapacity. To clarify the situation, adopted children are considered the same as natural children for the purposes of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I shall address my remarks to the issue of separation. I do not understand why civil partners, if their partnership has broken down, should not just be able to split apart permanently. Throughout the course of the proceedings I have been arguing not against the principle that there should be some system of registration for partnerships outside marriage, but that the system should be established on a distinct basis from marriage.
 Incorporating the concept of separation gives credence to the belief that we are contemplating none other than same-sex marriage in the Bill, although the Government deny that. The amendment passed in the other place to exclude references to separation was sensible. If the amendments are carried, in a situation where one of two civil partners who separate but are not ''divorced''—I suppose that is the expression people would use—dies, the one who survives will be entitled to a minimum of 50 per cent. of all their estate. I should have thought that if a civil partnership were on such shaky ground that the parties to it had separated, it would be better for it to be brought to a conclusion rather than to have the halfway house of separation. 
 I shall not repeat at length the references that I made earlier to what happens in France, where civil solidarity pacts can be applied to all couples outside 
 marriage relatively easily, and can be brought to an end equally easily. It seems to me that there is a demand for that, rather than what is specified in the Bill, which is getting incredibly complicated. It will ultimately have the perverse effect of deterring a lot of people from entering into civil partnerships because they will realise that it will be very difficult to disentangle themselves from the involvement created in law if something goes wrong, as is sadly often the case. I am against the incorporation in the Bill of the concept of legal separation as some sort of halfway house.

Alistair Carmichael: I echo the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the Justice 1 Committee. The draft Bill was originally placed before the Scottish Parliament and the level of pre-legislative scrutiny that the provisions received was a textbook example from which pre-legislative scrutiny in this place could learn a lot. As a result of that, the amendments that have been introduced by the Government, from the Scottish Executive, have made the passage of this Bill a great deal easier for those of us who represent Scottish constituencies and have an interest in such matters.
 I want to pick up on the important point just made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). He asked why we should have this provision on separation, but in fact it is not on separation but on judicial separation, which is a quite important distinction in this context. In all the years when I was in practice and doing court work, I never came across anyone who opted to undertake judicial separation, but it is an important part of Scots family law. 
 Hearing the hon. Gentleman trampling over Scots family law in a pair of tackety boots sold only with prejudice and ignorance reminds me of all the reasons why we considered it necessary to have a Scottish Parliament in the first place. The arguments that he made would apply equally to judicial separation for those who are parties to a civil marriage. The fact is that rightly or wrongly, we have this curious animal of judicial separation in Scotland, in much the same way that those of you south of the border have the curious arrangement that if a 16-year-old wants to enter a civil marriage—and hopefully some day a civil partnership—they have to go and ask their mammy and their daddy first. That does not make any particular sense to me, but clearly it is an important part of English marriage law, and if that is what people in England and Wales want, that is for them to decide. 
 Judicial separation is an important right available to people in Scotland who are parties to a civil marriage, and I can see absolutely no good reason why it should not be extended to those who enter a civil partnership. To remove that provision while retaining clause 118 would make nonsense of the whole Bill. Not to reinstate this provision would leave us with incoherent legislation.

Ann McKechin: I, too, rise to support the Government amendments. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) correctly stated, there has been a great
 deal of pre-legislative scrutiny in the Scottish Parliament on these provisions. In addition to a three-month consultation period with responses from more than 300 parties, there have been four separate evidence sessions held in Committees during the past six to eight months to consider in great detail the provisions of this part of the Bill.
 I concur with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we appreciate and respect Scots law principles on family law matters. Like him, I was a practising solicitor, and I came across only one or two judicial separation actions in 18 years' experience. Nevertheless, that has been an established element of family law in Scotland for a considerable time, and if anyone were to change that principle, it should be the Scottish Parliament. This Parliament, which created the Scottish Parliament, should respect its rights over marriage law. We have differences on separation. We have maintained the two and five-year periods of separation and the difference in consent for 16 to 18-year-olds in Scotland, on the basis that it is for the Scottish Parliament to make differences in family law as and when it requires. 
 That also applies to the law on succession, and I particularly welcome new clause 4, which contains a matter that I raised on Second Reading. It seeks to provide for same-sex couples the principle of equivalence to couples in marriage, and it will be important for many couples in same-sex relationships. We have respected the Scottish rights of succession and the Scottish laws on succession, and the principles on which they are founded, and again, quite rightly, it will be for the Scottish Parliament to decide, if and when it decides to review the succession law, whether there will be any subsequent amendments when, as I hope, this Bill becomes law. I congratulate the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament on their thoroughness during their participation in the scrutiny process and on their valuable amendments, which much improve the Bill.

Alan Duncan: I should like to seek some clarification from the Minister about the mathematics and language of new clause 4. I am trying to grapple with it and I am not sure that I totally understand it. As I understand it, in new clause 4(1), where a partner dies, the other partner has a claim on the deceased's estate to a minimum of half.

Anne McGuire: Movable.

Alan Duncan: Movable estate, which perhaps for clarity the Minister will define. If that person has issue, the partner would have a claim on a third. I do not understand what happens if the partner who remains alive has issue. How does the division scrape up? If they are civil partners with a joint estate, how is the estate assessed and divided?
 I do not understand the language of new clause 4(2), perhaps because I am not a lawyer. I do not understand the grammar of: 
''That circumstance is that the person is also survived by issue''.
 It needs parsing, and I quite simply cannot make sense of it. It looks as though other Members can, and, if it 
 can be translated from the Scottish, as a Scot I would very much appreciate it.

Anne McGuire: The law of succession is a very complicated piece of Scots law. There is a good Scots phrase, which the hon. Member for Christchurch should learn when meddling, dabbling or seeking to comment on Scots law, which is, ''Wha daur meddle wi' me.'' For the uninitiated I will translate. It means: ''Don't meddle with me too often.'' Before my Scots colleagues get in first, the second part of the phrase is, ''There's gaye few an' ther' a' deid.'' It means: ''Very few meddle with the Scots and those that do usually end up—''

Christopher Chope: In hospital.

Anne McGuire: ''—in another place,'' and I am not talking about the House of Lords.
 That leads me neatly to state that I will write to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton. 
Ann McKechin rose—

Anne McGuire: A lawyer to my rescue. I never thought I would see the day.

Ann McKechin: May I say that the wording of new clause 4 follows that of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964? The Act uses exactly the same wording, and that is why the wording has been used in the legislation before us. It matches that in the Act, which has been in force quite successfully for 40 years.

Anne McGuire: Well, there we have it. I am so glad that Government Back Benchers are so multi-skilled that they can remember all that.
 On the substantive point made by the hon. Member for Christchurch, judicial separation is appropriate for some couples who may not wish to dissolve their civil partnership because of beliefs or the impact it may have on any children. Judicial separation is an option for marriage couples and it should similarly be an option for civil partners.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that he was not aware of any cases of judicial separation in his legal life. Will the Minister tell us how many instances there are of judicial separation in Scotland at the moment?

Anne McGuire: It is fair to say that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland operated in one part of Scotland. It is a big country. I am unable to provide the hon. Member for Christchurch with the exact number, but regardless of whether judicial separation is used it is part of our judicial regime and it should be read across into civil partnerships. The amendment was moved on those grounds.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Frank Cook: I have a reputation for being somewhat pedantic at times. I shall now demonstrate why I have that reputation. Just to be precise, I am informed that the only languages that are permissible in the House are English, Latin and ancient Norman. The introduction of strange tongues can be somewhat confusing.
 Secondly, on a much more serious point, I must draw to the Committee's attention the fact that it is customary for a right hon. or hon. Member to rise in their place, not simply to lift an eyebrow, to indicate to the Chair that they wish to make a contribution to the debate. Do be co-operative with the Chair. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 7, in 
clause 84, page 38, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 53, in clause 84, page 39, line 42, leave out 'following modifications' and insert 
'modifications specified in subsections (7) and (8)'.
 No. 54, in clause 84, page 39, line 45, leave out 'those provisions' and insert 
'subsection (5) or those paragraphs'.
 No. 55, in clause 84, page 40, line 15, at end insert— 
'( ) For the purposes of this section, a degree of relationship specified in paragraph 1 of Schedule 11 exists whether it is of the full blood or the half blood. 
 ( ) Amend section 41(1) of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 (c.28) (application to determination of forbidden degrees of provisions of that Act relating to the status conferred by adoption) as follows— 
 (a) after first ''marriage'' insert '', to the eligibility of persons to register as civil partners of each other'', and 
 (b) for ''and incest'' substitute '', to such eligibility and to incest''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 84, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. This is simply to seek your guidance on procedure. Is it permissible either by ruling of the Chair or by the will of the Committee for consecutive clauses to be voted in a block, or must they be taken individually?

Frank Cook: They must be taken individually, save with the leave of the Committee. In other words, to avoid the rule, one would have to put the proposal to the Committee in those terms and seek leave of the Committee before presenting them.Schedule 11 Forbidden degrees of relationship: Scotland

Schedule 11 - Forbidden degrees of relationship: Scotland

Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 11 agreed to.

Anne McGuire: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Taking on board your advice, would it be appropriate to test the Committee's opinion as to whether clauses 85 to 114 may be taken en bloc at this point?

Frank Cook: Taking clauses 85 to 114 together would be impossible because there are Government amendments in between those two clauses. Taking clauses 85 to 89 en bloc is a prospect that the Minister may chose to put to the Committee.

Anne McGuire: I ask that the Committee's will be tested on that proposal.

Frank Cook: Is it the Committee's wish that the clauses be taken together?

Hon. Members: No.Clause 85 Appointment of authorised registrars

Clause 85 - Appointment of authorised registrars

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause 
stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Notice of proposal civil partnership

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I am slightly confused and I hope that you can help me. I thought that we voted to take a bloc of four clauses together and I think that we just voted on one of them only.

Frank Cook: You are right that leave of the Committee was sought to consider the clauses together. What seems to have escaped your attention is the fact that there was an objection in the form of a no vote. Therefore, the leave that was sought was negatived.

Clause 87 - Civil partnership notice book

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 88 - Publicisation

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 - Early registration

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 90 - Objections to registration

Amendment made: No. 56, in clause 90, page 42, line 
 6, leave out 
'of understanding the nature of civil partnership' 
 and insert 'of— 
 (i) 
 (i) understanding the nature of civil partnership, or 
 (ii) validly consenting to its formation'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 90, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. There is a lot of atmosphere in the Committee this morning. Apparently, people feel that it is unreasonable that we should have to go through all the clauses one by one. May I point out that, because of the Government's guillotine motion, it was not possible to put the equivalents of the individual clauses to a vote when they were debated under the England and Wales part of the Bill? The way in which the Government are trying to restrict debate is highly provocative and contentious. They refused to table in the other place a host of amendments that they tabled in this Committee, thereby taking up much more Committee time.
 We saw an example earlier of an hon. Member who seems to be under the impression that the majority should always have sway, irrespective of any other consideration. Today, in the other place, minority rights—the right of people to be able to go hunting—will be debated. There are minority and majority rights at stake in this Committee, and it is important that people should bear that in mind.

Frank Cook: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to put his views on the record. Not only was the programme motion fully discussed by the whole Committee, but it was in fact extended. His comments are not a point of order for the Chair and are therefore inappropriate at this moment.

Clause 91 - Place of registration

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92 - The civil partnership schedule

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 - Further provision as to registration

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 - Civil partnership with former spouse

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause 
stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95 - Certificates of no impediment for Part 2 purposes

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96 - Application of certain sections of 1965 Act

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Our procedures at the moment are unfolding in a clear and familiar pattern. We face the prospect, in the passage of about 40 minutes of the clock, of having 30
 consecutive Divisions, all of a similar pattern. Is there anything under the Standing Orders, or any discussion that you might have with the Chairman of Ways and Means, to say that although many, including I, do not approve of guillotines, knives or reducing the power of delay when it is appropriate for the Opposition, there comes a point at which such a series of Divisions actually becomes frivolous? Would you have such discussions to see whether in the context of the inevitable guillotine that we ultimately face, this kind of procedure is inappropriate to proper discussion of the Bill?

Frank Cook: There is provision in the main Chamber to deal with a situation of this kind, but not in Standing Committee. I can, however, give the Committee an assurance that I will discuss the matter with the Chairman of Ways and Means and place it on the agenda for the next meeting of the Chairmen's Panel.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. When you raise that matter at the Chairmen's Panel, will you also take into account the fact that on each individual clause it is open to those who wish to raise questions on that clause or speak against it to do so? It would probably take longer to put those arguments and questions, and one way of demonstrating opposition to a clause is to vote against it, without taking up the Committee's time by speaking against it. That certainly happened during proceedings on the Traffic Management Bill, on the Committee of which I had the privilege to serve previously—

Frank Cook: Order. Principles of limitation of time are well known to this House; I should have thought that they were known to every Member once they have been here more than a week. It serves no purpose to raise aspects of other legislation dealt with at other times. I have given the Committee an assurance that I will raise with the Chairman of Ways and Means and with the Chairmen's Panel the essence of the points raised in the point of order—namely the fact that perhaps some of the tactics engaged in Committee today might be considered by some people as frivolous. Those points I will raise. Limitations of time are well known to us and we have lived with them for years, since long before I came to this place.

Clause 97 - Correction of errors in civil partnership register

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98 - Offences

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 - Occupancy rights

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton raised his point of order, I had been in discussion with my hon. Friend who has been voting in a similar way to me.

Frank Cook: Order. May I seek clarification? Is this a point of order?

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. We feel very strongly about the way in which the Government have transacted the Bill. We have voted against every clause in part 2 as a matter of principle. We are hotly opposed to part 3, but we have made our point. We hope that the Government will accept the right to debate issues about which they feel strongly, but about which a minority also feels equally strongly, and that they will take account of the strength of feeling that we have expressed.

Frank Cook: Having been presented with a point of order, I must respond that if the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss the clause stand part, he is free to do so. That is the Committee's procedure.

Christopher Chope: I do not wish to discuss the clause stand part; I wish to let the matter go.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 100 to 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115 - Dissolution

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 236, in clause 115, page 59, line 37, leave out 'dissolution' and insert 'cessation'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 237, in clause 115, page 60, line 3, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert—
'(a) the defender consents to the granting of decree of dissolution of the civil partnership, 
 (b) the defender has committed an act of sexual infidelity, or 
 (c) there has been no cohabitation between the civil partners at any time during a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the bringing of the action.'.
 No. 238, in clause 115, page 60, line 22, leave out subsection (4). 
 No. 239, in clause 115, page 60, line 36, leave out subsection (6). 
 No. 240, in clause 115, page 60, line 40, leave out subsection (7).

Christopher Chope: These amendments mirror amendments that were tabled to an earlier part of the Bill but could not be discussed because of the guillotine. Their purpose is to ensure that the Bill reflects more properly the concerns expressed by, among others, the noble prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, who said:
''it is a concern to some in the Churches that the legislation enshrined in the Bill parallels that for marriage at almost every point. There is an ambiguity here that some find worrying''.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2004; Vol. 660, c. 399.]
 I find it worrying, as do a lot of people whom I have spoken to. They want to ensure that the Bill recognises that cohabitation and partnership short of marriage involve a looser bond than marriage, which is the purpose of the amendments. If they were agreed to, they would effectively ensure that civil partnerships had a different nature to marriage and were described in different language.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman was trying to pray in aid the comments of the Bishop of Oxford. He will, I am sure, have read all the Bishop's speech, in which he made it clear that while many in the Church expressed such feelings, he personally did not, which is why he chose that form of words very carefully.

Christopher Chope: He said those words, nevertheless. He recognised—perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not—that there are a large number of people who find the matter worrying.

Chris Bryant: But not the Bishop of Oxford.

Christopher Chope: One way of overcoming such concerns is to pass the amendment and ensure that the Bill creates something more akin to the civil solidarity pact available in France, as opposed to same-sex marriage, which is in essence what the Government are trying to impose on the country.
 The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland got rather wound up when I referred to Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is a Liberal Democrat, but much of the language in the amendments is taken directly from Lord Lester's own Bill on civil partnerships—the plural form was used—in the House of Lords, and that language is also analogous to the law in France. The amendments anticipate that chapter 1 of the Bill will still refer exclusively to same-sex partnerships—the current reality. They would remove the need to show that a relationship had broken down irretrievably and introduce the issue of cessation instead.

Alistair Carmichael: On the point about cessation instead of dissolution, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will favour us with an explanation of what he sees as the distinction. Will he explain why he seeks to change ''dissolution'' to ''cessation'' in amendment No. 236, when amendment No. 237 states:
''the defender consents to the granting of decree of dissolution''?
 Why did he not favour us with an amendment making further reference to dissolution?

Christopher Chope: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that I had not tabled enough amendments and that I should have tabled some more consequential amendments, I plead guilty. However, on the substantive concern he has expressed, the issue of cessation was referred to by Lord Lester in his Bill, and I presume that he used that term—indeed, this is why I have drafted my amendment as I have—because it makes it clear that the partnership that we are discussing is different from marriage. The Government say that that is the case, but we keep saying that if it looks like marriage and has all the trappings of marriage, it is marriage, even though they deny it.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that Lord Lester of Herne Hill introduced a different Bill, but why I do not quite understand he keeps referring to that Bill during consideration of the Bill that is before us, which he seems to recognise is different. I am not suggesting that he should table more amendments, but asking him to explain the inconsistency in the amendments that he has tabled.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech, perhaps accepting some of my amendments, but saying that some further amendments are required to iron out inconsistencies. When he has developed his arguments in that respect and I have listened to the logic of his point of view, I am sure that I will be able to wind up this debate, give my verdict and see whether, in the light of his points, it is worth pushing the amendment to a vote or whether it should be withdrawn. That is the essence of an open debate.
 I do not need to speak at great length about the amendments. Essentially, I want to make it easier for people to get out of same-sex partnership 
 arrangements. The fact that people can do so easily in France is a good thing. I would like it to be equally easy for people to do so in this country and in Scotland, to which these amendments relate. I hope that, even at this late stage, people will be able to accept that if there is to be a difference between civil partnerships and marriage, it would be as well to make that apparent in the Bill to a much greater extent, instead of trying to mirror marriage at every stage, including with regard to the complicated arrangements that relate to the breakdown of marriage.

John Bercow: My hon. Friend has just lamented what he regards as the unnecessary complexity of the existing provisions. I put it to him that the way in which his amendments introduce a new concept of sexual infidelity causes him to be guilty of the very offence of excessive complexity of which he is effectively accusing the Government. Does he not accept that there is already provision for unreasonable behaviour to be considered a ground for dissolution—or, God forbid, if he got his way with his amendment, for cessation—and that therefore there is no good reason to introduce the concept of sexual infidelity?

Christopher Chope: I do not know why my hon. Friend is so sensitive to this issue of sexual infidelity as a ground for establishing irretrievable breakdown. That is what we are talking about: the grounds on which irretrievable breakdown can be established. At the moment, there is no reference to being able to establish irretrievable breakdown on the basis of an act of sexual infidelity. That is pretty fundamental stuff. How can people have a firm civil partnership or relationship if one of them is indulging in sexual infidelity? If that is connived at or agreed to by the other party, that is fine, but if it is not consented to or connived at by the other party, the party who is the victim of that sexual infidelity should have an absolute right to be able to say that, on those grounds, the relationship has broken down.

Ann McKechin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scots law the definition of unreasonable behaviour would include sexual acts that are not covered under the definition of adultery? That has always been the case in family law in Scotland and it is covered specifically in subsection (3)(a) of the clause.

Christopher Chope: It is some years since I studied law in Scotland, so I accept the information that the hon. Lady has provided. Perhaps that will be the explanation from the Minister as to why the amendment is thought inappropriate. However, in English law, adultery is still a specific ground and is specified as evidence of a breakdown of a marriage. If the provision is already implicit in the law in Scotland, I still think that there is no harm to be done by making it explicit in the Bill, which would be the effect of amendment No. 237. The provisions would then refer to the defender committing an act of sexual infidelity.

Chris Bryant: The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's contribution in Committee has been to try to make the
 Bill less like a gay marriage Bill. Does he not realise that introducing a concept of gay adultery makes the provisions of the Bill more like gay marriage?

Christopher Chope: In trying to amend the Bill and to put forward arguments, the challenge has been that I have encountered resistance from the Government and from the majority on the Committee to any idea that we can make the Bill deal with civil partnerships outside marriage at a lower level of commitment. I am faced—against my will—with the fact that the Government and the hon. Gentleman are insistent on making the Bill as much like a same-sex marriage Bill as possible.
 I am trying to say that, if the Bill is going to be like that, I think that it is unfair and unjust that people should be tied up in long-standing relationships with a commitment to each other that they will not be able to break for up to five years without the consent of the other party, even if that other party is committing acts of sexual infidelity. It is important, therefore, that the party who is the victim of that sexual infidelity should be able to use, as a ground for dissolution or cessation of the partnership, the fact that the person with whom he or she is living has been guilty of an act of sexual infidelity.

John Bercow: I have always regarded my hon. Friend as something of a logician in this House. I am genuinely troubled by what he just said. Does he not see that there is a curious neurosis about his attitude to the various amendments to the Bill? Does he not accept the logic of what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just said—that, on the one hand, my hon. Friend is arguing for the use of the term ''cessation'' rather than ''dissolution'' to underline the essential difference between the institution of civil partnership and that of marriage and, on the other hand, he is arguing for a provision that makes the arrangement much more like marriage? It seems that my hon. Friend is guilty of a degree of turgidisation that is unworthy of him.

Christopher Chope: I do not know whether you have read the Official Report of the last sitting, Mr. Cook. My hon. Friend sought to provoke me to recant for having nominated him to be a member of the Conservative party candidates list. I do not recant from that nomination because I think that the House would be a much poorer place without the presence of my hon. Friend.
 However, I thought that my hon. Friend understood the procedures of Parliament. Although we cannot express the amendments as being ''in the alternative'', that is essentially the way in which amendments Nos. 236 and 237 should be viewed. If amendment No. 236 is successful, I shall not seek to put amendment No. 237 to a vote. Amendment No. 236 seeks to simplify the way in which the arrangement can be brought to an end, by means of cessation, rather than requiring all the complications of dissolution. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. 
 If I am unsuccessful in getting amendment No. 236 to the vote and winning that vote, the alternative—if one was doing pleadings, whether in Scotland or in 
 England, one would put that the latter pleading was ''further'' or ''in the alternative''—is amendment No. 237. That amendment accepts the decision of the Committee on amendment No. 236 to continue to pursue dissolution as the means to end the partnership. In amendment No. 237, I say, ''If you're going to insist on same-sex marriage in all but name, we might as well give the partner to that same-sex marriage the ability to bring that marriage to an end on the grounds that the person with whom he or she is living has been guilty of an act of sexual infidelity.'' 
 I turn the argument back to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). If, as I think he is, he is in favour of what are effectively same-sex marriages, why does he not think that sexual infidelity on the part of one of the partners to the marriage should be a ground for its dissolution?

John Bercow: The answer is that adequate provision is already made in the context of unreasonable behaviour. The term ''adultery'' has a specific legal connotation.
 As I am a generous man, may I simply say to my hon. Friend that my belief that he is at heart a logician is now confirmed? There is a certain logic to his position, at least according to his lights.

Christopher Chope: Praise indeed. That is as far as my hon. Friend is prepared to go. I do not know whether his comment is fair, but it certainly amused me.
 There is no point in trying to develop my arguments further. As I understand it, for Scotland we are not talking about unreasonable behaviour but irretrievable breakdown. There is a series of grounds upon which a marriage can be dissolved on the basis of irretrievable breakdown, and the provisions set out what could happen—for example, if there has been at any time behaviour such that the pursuer cannot reasonably be expected to cohabit with the defendant. 
 Unfortunately, I understand from what I read in books that these days some marriages or partnerships are open marriages or partnerships in which one or other, or sometimes both, of the partners has sexual relationships outside the partnership with one or more other individuals. I would call that adultery in the context of marriage or, in the context of a same-sex marriage, sexual infidelity. My understanding of the law is that if persistent sexual infidelity has been connived at or ignored by one of the partners in a partnership, that in itself could be used as a defence against a dissolution application made on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. The argument would go this way: on the basis that my partner was quite happy with my sleeping around up until now, why is he suddenly calling a halt on this particular relationship outside the partnership? In order to prevent such an estoppel arising in a contested dissolution, if one party to the marriage is a victim of sexual infidelity, without any further argument that should be a ground for making an application for dissolution on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.

Alistair Carmichael: I am not sure where to start. Dealing with the logic of the hon. Gentleman's arguments is a little like trying to unscramble eggs. He said various things that require an answer. The first
 is his suggestion that his amendments Nos. 236 and 237 are alternatives. I do not see how changing ''dissolution'' in one part of one clause but leaving it elsewhere, as evidenced by any number of different examples, answers the objection that the amendments are not consistent with each other or the remainder of the clause.
 I wish to deal with the point about sexual infidelity. I am not aware of any other area of family law in which sexual infidelity is used as a term of art in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman would wish it to be used for civil partnerships. He has not favoured us with an amendment to any part in the Bill in order to suggest what might constitute sexual infidelity. Therefore, one would assume that it would be left to the courts to build up a body of law on what constituted sexual infidelity. Would that be a single sexual act with another person, or would it have to be a series of acts? Would—to put it bluntly—a single kiss be sufficient or would something more be required? Not for the first time, the import of what the hon. Member for Christchurch has brought to the Committee is that it would in effect be a lawyers' charter—another gravy train for no good reason. Subsection (3) includes the question of the conduct with which the defender might not reasonably be expected to live, and as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin) has already said, it is clear that most of the acts envisaged by the hon. Gentleman would be caught by that. 
 The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that sexual infidelity should somehow be a read-over for adultery in civil marriage does not work for me. One has to consider the question of what ''infidelity'' means—unfaithfulness, to use another word. It is my view that the circumstance that the hon. Gentleman outlined would not even be caught by the phrase ''sexual infidelity'' because if someone engaged in some sort of sexual act with another person with the acceptance or connivance of the partner in a civil partnership, surely he or she would not have been unfaithful to that partner. Infidelity is more than a mere act, in the way that adultery is. 
 There are all sorts of contradictions in the hon. Gentleman's position. He has argued at great length throughout the Committee proceedings that we should not be creating a rival institution to marriage, yet he suggests that we should make dissolution or cessation—he has never yet explained the difference—more like marriage. I do not understand that, but I think that the root of the problem is that the hon. Gentleman just does not get this Bill at all, or what it is about. He is obsessed with labels and considers all the time whether we are creating something that is like marriage. This is not about creating something that is like marriage, but is about creating the safer circumstances that arise from marriage. If the creation of something that is like marriage is necessary for that, I am quite happy with it.

Anne McGuire: The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head in his last couple of comments. If I could use a 1960s vernacular phrase—well, it was very popular in the 1960s and hon. Members who are too young to
 remember that must forgive me—we have here seen a fundamental dichotomy, and it is clear that the hon. Member for Christchurch has very little sympathy with the Bill. He just does not get it, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said.
 With the greatest respect, that was shown in some of the comments of the hon. Member for Christchurch. He wants to make cohabitation, as he calls it, looser in the Bill. He wants to make it easier to get out of same-sex partnerships. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in previous discussions, we see them as something far more stable—a means of giving legal coherence to long-term relationships. I fear that the radical changes that the hon. Gentleman proposes would totally undermine that approach. 
 I shall deal briefly with the amendments to which the hon. Member for Christchurch has spoken. I shall make the assumption, which may be wrong, that since he did not speak to two or three of his amendments, he is not so exercised about them. To save the Committee's time, I will deal with those to which he spoke. 
 Amendment No. 236 replaces dissolution with cessation. I have already stated that a civil partnership is a serious commitment with legal consequences and that it requires an appropriate level of formality to bring it to an end. The legal effects of a civil partnership, such as the inability to enter another civil partnership or marry, are in force until such times as those formalities have been completed. I suggest to the hon. Member for Christchurch that a civil partnership is not just a simple arrangement—Saturday night, become a civil partner; Monday night, get it dissolved. That is not the intention of the Bill. 
 The terminology in the Bill is important. Dissolution reflects the legal, court-based process required to bring a legal relationship such as a civil partnership to an end and the fact that the legal consequences of a civil partnership remain in place until all necessary formalities are completed. Cessation implies that a civil partnership can be brought to an end at will, and the word is incompatible with the status and dignity that the Government wish to give to civil partnerships. 
 Amendment No. 237 seeks to remove provisions that set out when an irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership is taken to be established and to legislate, in the hon. Gentleman's words, in much more flexible or looser terms. As with civil marriage in Scotland, the irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership could be taken on grounds of unreasonable behaviour, desertion, non-cohabitation for two years when the defender agrees with the application for dissolution or non-cohabitation for five years where the defender disagrees. The amendment would mean that the irretrievable breakdown is taken to be established if the defender consents, if the defender has committed 
''an act of sexual infidelity,''
 or there has been no cohabitation for six months. 
 The first part of the amendment would mean that the civil partnership could be dissolved almost as soon as it has been formed. It makes a mockery of what civil partnerships set out to be and it undermines the legal relationship. The second part sets out that a civil partnership can be dissolved where the defender has committed an act of sexual infidelity. It is not necessary to put that in the Bill. Clause 115(3)(a) already sets out that a civil partnership can be dissolved on grounds of unreasonable behaviour, and sexual infidelity certainly constitutes such grounds.

Christopher Chope: If sexual infidelity can constitute such grounds, what assurance is there that it will always constitute such grounds? That is the difference between what the Minister is saying and my amendment.

Anne McGuire: What I am saying is the same as any dissolution process. I am certainly not going to second-guess a judge or sheriff and certainly not in a Scots court. The provision for unreasonable behaviour is in the clause, and sexual infidelity could constitute such grounds for dissolution.
 The hon. Gentleman also ducked a problem of definition. What is sexual infidelity and how would it be proved? Adultery is a voluntary sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex who is not one's spouse. Adultery is specific grounds for divorce in Scotland, but if a husband commits sexual infidelity with another man, it is not adultery. However, that is covered by unreasonable behaviour in Scots divorce law. 
 The third part of amendment No. 237 sets out that a civil partnership can be dissolved if there is no cohabitation between the partners during six months prior to the action. As is the case with civil marriage, there is no requirement for married couples physically to live together. Some couples who already have their own homes and choose not to live together will form a civil partnership. Living apart for six months does not always signify the end of a relationship; it might simply mean that one partner has temporarily moved to take up work. Members of Parliament in Scotland live four days a week away from their marital home, and I am not sure whether we could cite that as a case for dissolution. Perhaps some of our spouses would disagree with that. 
 I do not want to get into the details of the other two amendments. Clause 115 provides that an action for the dissolution of a civil partnership can be brought in the Court of Session or in the sheriff court. It sets out the terms under which a court may grant a decree and when an achievable breakdown of a civil partnership is established. In the light of those arguments, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Christopher Chope: The Minister says that she and I are at odds about the principles of the Bill, and we are. The basic problem is that I am keen that all relationships outside marriage should be treated on a par. That is why I earlier described cohabitation as a looser bond than marriage and why I think that a same-sex partnership should be a looser bond than marriage. That should be reflected in the Bill, but I understand that some people take a different view.
 The Minister said that sexual infidelity can be taken into account in dissolution proceedings in Scotland, but she also told us that in divorce proceedings in Scotland, adultery is a specific ground. She then sought to differentiate between adultery and sexual infidelity.

Alistair Carmichael: I have listened to as much as I can. There is only one ground for divorce, and that is the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. There are various ways in which that could be evidenced. If the hon. Gentleman is going to make his point, can he at least make it accurately?

Christopher Chope: In order to try to shorten matters, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about evidence. The Minister was saying that adultery is evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage, but she does not think that sexual infidelity should be. If adultery is specifically identified as evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage in Scotland, why should sexual infidelity not be acknowledged in relation to the breakdown of a civil partnership?
 Technical points have been made about the definition of sexual infidelity. I am sure that the details of the sexual infidelity would be set out in any pleadings and that the court would be able to reach a judgment. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland thinks that that will create a gravy train for lawyers. To say that is to suggest that he expects a lot of civil partnerships to be the subject of legal proceedings for their dissolution. I did not think that that was the case being put forward by the promoters of the Bill. 
 Amendment No. 237 is the most fundamental of this group of amendments. Amendment No. 236 would insert the word ''cessation'' because that is different language from dissolution. It is also the language that was adopted by Lord Lester in his Bill, which was designed to differentiate between marriage and relationships outside marriage, which have a looser bond. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 237, in clause 115, page 60, line 3, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d) and insert— 
'(a) the defender consents to the granting of decree of dissolution of the civil partnership, 
 (b) the defender has committed an act of sexual infidelity, or 
 (c) there has been no cohabitation between the civil partners at any time during a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the bringing of the action.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 13.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 117 - Effect of resumption of cohabitation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Christopher Chope: I had tabled an amendment to omit the clause because I take the view that the process of dissolving a partnership should be a lot easier than is currently contemplated. That fits in with the argument that I was making earlier, although that has been rejected by the Committee. The effect of clause 117 would be:
''In an action to which . . . section 115(3) relates, the irretrievable breakdown of a civil partnership is not taken to be established if, after the expiry of the period mentioned . . . the pursuer resumes cohabitation''.
 That would not have made any sense at all with my earlier amendments, which dealt with a cessation after a short number of months. However, in the light of the fact that my earlier amendments were defeated, I will not press clause 117 to a vote. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 118 and 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120 - Nullity

Amendment made: No. 57, in clause 120, page 62, line 8, leave out from 'other' to end of line 9 and insert 
', the civil partnership is void if, and only if— 
 (a) they were not eligible to do so, or 
 (b) though they were so eligible, either of them did not validly consent to its formation.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Clause 120, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Anne McGuire: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in clause 121, page 62, line 16, leave out '50' and insert
'50(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e)'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 59 to 64. 
 Government new clause 5—Validity of civil partnerships registered outside Northern Ireland.

Anne McGuire: This group of amendments refers to clause 121, which deals with the circumstances in which a civil partnership registered abroad is void or voidable in Scotland. A new clause to provide equivalent provisions for Northern Ireland consistent with clause 54 for England and Wales and clause 121 for Scotland, as amended, is also included in the group. The amendments are largely consequential on the addition of specific provisions for Northern Ireland following Government amendments to the Bill in another place.
 Clause 121 concerns the circumstances in which a civil partnership is to be treated as void or voidable in Scotland when the parties originally registered as civil partners outside Scotland. That could be an issue when partners have subsequently moved to Scotland and the validity of the partnership fails to be determined by a court in Scotland. 
 Amendments Nos. 58 and 63 remove references to clause 50(1)(d), which refers to the issuing of an interim gender recognition certificate as a basis on which a civil partnership is voidable in England and Wales. In Scotland, the issuing of such a certificate is treated as grounds for dissolution of the partnership under clause 115(2)(b). Dissolution is to be treated under the Bill as a matter to which the law of the forum applies. For that reason, courts in England and Wales will not dissolve a partnership registered in Scotland on the basis that a gender recognition certificate has been issued as that is a basis for annulment, not a ground for dissolution there. By the same token, Scottish courts should not annul a civil partnership registered in England and Wales on the basis of such a certificate, but should maintain the Scottish approach of treating that as a ground on which a partnership may be dissolved. 
 Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 reflect the insertion into the Bill of new Northern Ireland provisions and correct the text of clause 121 to accommodate those. Amendment No. 62 creates the same effect as the text removed by amendment No. 58, but does so, dare I say it, in a more economic way. 
 The first part of amendment No. 64 is made for the same reasons as amendments Nos. 58 and 63. The new subsection (8A) is designed to apply English and Northern Irish procedural bars to annulment of a voidable partnership when the partnership is to be treated as voidable in Scotland on the basis that it was 
 registered in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or that English or Northern Irish law otherwise applies to the case. It would be wrong for a party to have the benefit of English or Northern Irish rules on nullity without having to surmount the procedural obstacles that would apply if bringing an action to have the partnership annulled in either of those two jurisdictions. 
 New subsections (8B) and (8C) are consequential on the other changes to the text already made by amendment No. 64. 
 The new clause inserted after clause 172 provides an equivalent provision for Northern Ireland and is, again, consistent with clause 54 and clause 121, as amended. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 59, in clause 121, page 62, line 19, leave out 
'by virtue of provision made under section 149,' 
 and insert 'under section 169,'.
 No. 60, in clause 121, page 62, line 21, leave out 
'by virtue of such provision' 
 and insert 
 'under section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e)'.
 No. 61, in clause 121, page 62, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (i). 
 No. 62, in clause 121, page 62, line 32, after '(2)(a)' insert 'or (b)'. 
 No. 63, in clause 121, page 62, line 37, leave out from first 'voidable' to end of line 42 and insert 'if— 
(i) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is England and Wales and the circumstances fall within section 50(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e), or 
 (ii) the appropriate part of the United Kingdom is Northern Ireland and the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e). 
 (5) The appropriate part of the United Kingdom is the part by reference to which the condition in subsection (2)(b) of the relevant section is met.'.
 No. 64, in clause 121, page 63, line 7, leave out from 'law,' to end of line 15 and insert— 
'(b) where either of the parties was domiciled in England and Wales at the time when the overseas relationship was registered, the circumstances fall within section 50(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e), or 
 (c) where either of the parties was domiciled in Northern Ireland at the time when the overseas relationship was registered, the circumstances fall within section 170(1)(a), (b), (c) or (e). 
 (8A) Section 51 or (as the case may be) section 171 applies for the purposes of— 
 (a) subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (4)(b), 
 (b) subsection (8)(a), in so far as applicable in accordance with the relevant law, and 
 (c) subsection (8)(b) and (c). 
 (8B) In subsections (8)(a) and (8A)(b) ''the relevant law'' means the law of the country or territory where the overseas relationship was registered (including its rules of private international law). 
 (8C) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (8A)(b) and (c), references in sections 50 and 51 or (as the case may be) sections 170 and 171 to the formation of the civil partnership are to be read as references to the registration of the overseas relationship.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clause 123 - Regulations

Amendment made: No. 8, in clause 123, page 63, line 31, leave out subsection (3).—[Jacqui Smith.] 
 Clause 123, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 124 to 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 133 - Formation of civil partnership by registration

Anne McGuire: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in clause 133, page 67, line 22, leave out 'civil partnership'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 8—Restriction on publicity of reports of proceedings.

Anne McGuire: I am delighted that we have moved on to part 4 of the Bill, which makes provision for civil partnerships in Northern Ireland. Part 4 is very much a mirror image of part 2, which deals with England and Wales, given the great similarities of legislative style and history between the two jurisdictions.
 There are very few Government amendments. With the exception of a single drafting amendment, the other amendments as well as the schedule of minor and consequential amendments for Northern Ireland and two ancillary technical amendments were all taken for debate on Report in another place. Because of other difficulties, they were not moved and it was necessary to seek their inclusion in the Bill at this stage. 
 As I indicated, amendment No. 65 and new clause 8 deal with Northern Ireland. The first amendment is a textual one. It is a technical drafting amendment to remove certain unnecessary words from clause 133(5). The term ''registrar'' does not need to be qualified by the words ''civil partnership'', given the definition in clause 156. 
 New clause 8 inserts a new clause at the end of part 4 of the Bill to deal with a Northern Ireland law. The new clause extends section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes (Reports) Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 to civil partners. Section 1 of the 1966 Act makes it an offence to publish certain details in connection with judicial proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage or judicial separation; proceedings relating to a declaration as to whether a civil partnership is valid; any proceedings by one spouse against the other for financial provision; or proceedings concerning another order made in connection with any such cause or matter. The amendment makes it an offence to disclose similar details in respect of civil partners involved in comparable judicial proceedings under the Civil Partnership Bill.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I do not propose to say much at this stage about the
 clauses of the Bill that relate to Northern Ireland. I have a later amendment, which I hope we will get to this afternoon. It will afford an opportunity to discuss in more detail the views and concerns about aspects of the Bill that relate to the part of the United Kingdom that I represent.
 However, I want to put it on the record that when the Government carried out a consultation in Northern Ireland prior to tabling the Bill before Parliament, the clear majority of responses were against their proposal. As my party leader pointed out on Second Reading, the 2001 census found that there were only 288 same-sex couple households in the whole of Northern Ireland. As the Government say that at most only 5 per cent. of same-sex couples will commit to civil partnerships, only 14 of 288 households in Northern Ireland would seek to benefit from the arrangements for civil partnerships. 
 Frankly, we have other priorities in Northern Ireland and other issues for which we would like legislation before we get down to this kind of arrangement. That is why I shall oppose the Government's amendments. I do not believe that the Bill should apply in Northern Ireland, and the amendment that I will move this afternoon, should we come to it, will seek to make an arrangement whereby the Northern Ireland Assembly will have the right to the final say on the application of the Bill in Northern Ireland.

Anne McGuire: In response to the hon. Gentleman, I wish to put it on the record that, since the consultation, we received an additional 403 letters from same-sex couples in Northern Ireland and from their friends and families when some doubts were raised about whether Northern Ireland would be included in the Bill.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: If the hon. Lady's statistics are correct, they are at variance with those in the Government census in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady hinted at the end of her remarks that the letters were from the family and friends of same-sex couples in addition to same-sex couples. Some clarity is needed on that matter.

Anne McGuire: I wanted to put it on the record that when it appeared that the provisions would not extend to Northern Ireland, we received, I repeat, 403 letters from same-sex couples, from family and friends. That would properly reflect opinion and it deals with some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in respect of consultation. I hope that that clarifies the matter; we have had representations from more than 14 people in Northern Ireland.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 133, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Eligibility

Amendments made: No. 9, in clause 134, page 67, line 25, leave out 'Subject to subsection (2),'. 
 No. 10, in clause 134, page 67, line 33, leave out subsection (2).—[Jacqui Smith.] 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 134, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 13 agreed to.

Alan Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Perhaps I missed it, but I do not recall agreeing to schedule 12 remaining part of the Bill.

Frank Cook: We dealt with schedule 12 some time
 ago.

Alan Duncan: I apologise for not paying attention, Mr. Cook.

Frank Cook: As Chairman, I find it rather comforting that I am not the only one who falls asleep.Clause 135 Notice of proposed civil partnership

Clause 135 - Notice of proposed civil partnership

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 136 and 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 138 - Objections

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 138 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 139 to 141 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 14 agreed to. 
 Clauses 142 to 154 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 155 - Regulations

Amendment made: No. 11, in clause 155, page 75, line 29, leave out subsection (2).—[Jacqui Smith.] 
 Clause 155, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 156 to 169 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 170 - Grounds on which civil partnership is voidable

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 243, in clause 170, page 83, line 33, at end insert—
'(ca) at the time of its formation, the respondent was suffering from a communicable sexual disease;'.
 The amendment mirrors amendment No. 227 to clause 50, which we could not debate in the previous sitting because of the guillotine. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and I have refrained from voting against many clauses in this part of the Bill because we want to get on to debate some of the amendments. 
 This is one of the amendments that I tabled so that we would have the opportunity to debate the subject and tease out the Government's thinking on it. I am sure that I will be attacked for saying that the amendment is a recognition that we are talking about same-sex marriage, when I am against same-sex marriage. However, I recognise that that is what the Bill is about and if we are going to have nullification of same-sex marriage, we might as well have the same grounds for voidability as we have for what I would call proper marriage. 
 The amendment would add a new ground and would make a civil partnership voidable if at the time of its formation the respondent was suffering from a communicable sexual disease. That is nothing new under the law in the sense that that is already the law as it applies to marriage under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. For those who do not have the terms in front of them, section 12 of that Act provides that a marriage celebrated after 31 July should be voidable ''on the following grounds'' only. Many grounds are set out and ground (e) is that at the time of the marriage the respondent was suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form. 
 The amendment is intended to put the provision in the Bill on a par with what happens under the law of marriage as it stands under the 1973 Act. Of course, the provision would be subject to the following clause, as it is under the 1973 Act. If the other party to the partnership—or, in terms of the 1973 Act, to the marriage—consents to or connives at this, that remove the grounds for nullity. However, in the absence of the other partner's knowledge, that would remain a ground on which a civil partnership would be voidable. It must be in the public interest to prevent a party to a civil partnership from finding out that the other party was carrying a communicable sexual disease at the time that the partnership was formed, without his or her knowledge. The provision is a necessary protection to be applied in those circumstances. 
 We do not need to go into the crisis in sexually transmitted diseases among people of all ages. However, you may be familiar, Mr. Cook, with the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology note No. 217, issued in April of this year and headed ''Teenage sexual health''. One can see from that the trends in sexually transmitted infections in 16 to 19-year-olds. To say that they present a horrendous picture is to understate the situation. We can see that 
 there have been percentage increases in the incidence of various sexually transmitted disease diagnoses that range from more than 50 per cent. to doubling. We are talking about quite small numbers, but there was a fivefold increase in one sexually transmitted disease.

Angela Eagle: Can the hon. Gentleman say how such provisions would be a protection, as they would simply void a civil partnership as they can void a marriage? Is that not closing the stable door after the horse has bolted? If we wish to protect people from communicable sexual diseases, it cannot be done by voiding a marriage. It must be done by proper education in such matters prior to people beginning sexual relations with each other, regardless of whether they are married, in civil partnerships or not. Even if he does not approve of it, he will surely admit that quite a lot of sexual relations go on outside of marriage.

Christopher Chope: I agree with the hon. Lady. We are not at odds on the matter, and I was quoting figures only to indicate that the problem is widespread. At present, if a party to a marriage, unknown to the other party, is carrying a sexually transmitted disease, that is a means of making that marriage null and void. We are not talking of something fanciful because the figures show that under this Government—this is not a party political point but a fact—such cases have become more commonplace. It is important that we should extend the same protection to those engaged in civil partnerships that we extend to those in lawful marriage.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman has just said something rather staggering, which is that the political colour of a Government seems to have some relationship to the level of sexually transmitted disease. If he stops and thinks, he will realise how ludicrous that actually is.

Christopher Chope: When the hon. Lady reads the record, she will see that I did not say that. All I was doing was quoting the figures that happen to cover the period during which the Government have been in office. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton realises that, tempted as I was to make a party political point, I was not going to do so, and expressly said that I was not.

Diane Abbott: As a parent, I share the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern about the prevalence of communicable sexual disease among young people, but he will be aware that in many communities one of the biggest sources of AIDS infections is among gay men who are in the closet, possibly even concealing their sexuality from themselves, who persist in heterosexual relationships and do not talk about such issues. That is one of the greatest sources of infection. If we are trying to address the prevalence of communicable disease, perhaps we should issue a call to gay men in the closet to come out today and stop infecting hapless women who have no means of knowing that they are in the closet.

Christopher Chope: I am sure that the hon. Lady is right, but her argument goes slightly beyond the terms of the amendment, which is confined to what happens after
 people have registered civil partnerships. It is only saying that in a situation where one of the parties to a civil partnership is the carrier of a sexually communicable disease and the other party does not know about it, that should be the ground of setting the relationship aside.

Alan Duncan: What happens if the partner carrying the disease did not know about it either, and could not have done so?

Christopher Chope: I do not know about ''could not have done so''. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about matters relating to medicine to know which sexually communicable diseases are such that the carrier is ignorant of them. Even if both parties are ignorant of such a disease, under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, ignorance is no excuse. The law considers the facts, and if the other party to the marriage wishes to annul that marriage as a result of his or her marital partner having a sexually transmitted disease, they can do so under the 1973 Act.
 If my amendment were carried, there would be no difference between what would happen in a civil partnership and what would happen in a lawful marriage. Although I have not been able to carry the Committee on several of my amendments, I would have thought that it would be concerned to protect the interests of a partner in a civil partnership who is ignorant to the fact that the other partner is carrying a sexually transmitted disease that would torpedo the effectiveness of the relationship.

John Bercow: As I understand it, no such provision exists for England, Scotland or Wales, so my hon. Friend is proposing an arrangement that does not obtain in any other part of the United Kingdom. Is there a reason for that?

Christopher Chope: Yes, the reason is that I tabled an amendment on this matter for England and Wales, which was not reached, so I had no chance to move it. This is an important issue, and I am sure that if the amendment were carried in relation to Northern Ireland, the Government would introduce on Report amendments reflecting the will of the Committee to extend the change to England and Wales and, subject to further advice, to Scotland. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the fact that an amendment originally tabled for discussion during the first part of the Bill was not reached because of the really mean guillotine motion introduced by the Government.

Anne McGuire: Amendment No. 243 would add the provision that a civil partnership would be voidable at the time of its formation if either partner were suffering from a communicable sexual disease. I must correct, with the greatest respect, the hon. Member for Buckingham: there is a provision in section 14 of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 for marriage to be voidable if the applicant can show that at the time of the marriage the other person was suffering from venereal disease in
 a communicable form. That is a similar provision relating to the marriage law of England and Wales.
 As hon. Members know, the Government's intention in drafting the Bill was that civil partners would be treated in the same way as spouses except where there was justification for a difference in treatment. This was one matter on which we felt that there was justification for difference. It is a medical fact that men and women may carry certain sexually transmitted infections for many years without knowing it, and we do not believe that it is appropriate in present-day circumstances to include that as a ground for nullifying a civil partnership. The deliberate transmission of a sexually transmitted infection might well be considered as a basis for dissolution, as a factor proving unreasonable behaviour. 
 I suggest that were we starting now to create marriage law, it would be highly questionable whether we would include such a provision in that law. It is a provision from a bygone age when, perhaps, we were less informed about sexually transmitted diseases. The Government have clearly stated in their national strategy for sexual health and HIV that we need to de-stigmatise the whole issue of sexually transmitted infections if we are to tackle the increasing infection rate, as two of my hon. Friends have said. Suggesting that sexually transmitted diseases should be treated differently from any other communicable diseases in that regard is counterproductive to that aim. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, which adds nothing to the Bill.

Christopher Chope: Again, this has been a fascinating insight into the Government's thinking. The Minister has made an important policy announcement, namely that she does not believe that the existing Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, the law relating to marriage in England, Scotland and Wales, should any longer, in the light of modern-day events, contain a provision that a marriage should be voidable on the ground that one of the parties to it has a communicable sexually transmitted disease. She is saying that although the Government are not introducing any amendments to marriage law to reflect her opinion on that at the moment they think that, contrary to everything else that has been said on equating this Bill with a marriage Bill, they should be anticipating such a change in the law on marriage and removing from this Bill any references to sexually transmitted disease as a ground for nullity.
 That is rather analogous to the debate that we had earlier, prompted by my amendment on the process of registration and whether it would have to be carried out in the locality where the parties were living. The challenge that I put to the Minister is this: if it is reasonable to be thinking about changing this provision in marriage law in due course, and if the Government want to have this Bill on a par with the laws of marriage as far as possible, why is this provision not included in the Bill now so that when in future the Government decide to change marriage law they can at the same time change the law on civil partnerships? At the moment, if the amendment is not accepted, civil partnerships will be the only type of 
 marriage that may not be voided on the ground that one partner suffers from a sexually transmitted disease. So I will not withdraw my amendment.

Anne McGuire: I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Law Reform Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland is looking into marriage law in Northern Ireland.
 I also suggest to him that he should not put words into my mouth. I put on record that the situation in England and Wales would be questionable. The hon. Gentleman, in response to the hon. Member for Buckingham, obviously did not appreciate that. My opinion, which got some consideration in Committee, is that that is where we will start. The underlying principle of the Bill is, as the Government have suggested all along, that we will treat civil partnerships equally except where there is a justification not to do so. In this case, we think that there is a justification not to do so. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 15.

Question accordingly negatived.

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. Yet again we seem to be on the verge of being beaten by the clock. Among the amendments and Government amendments yet to be debated are several important ones relating to pensions. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will put forward a change to the timetable so that we can debate all the Government amendments that are on the amendment paper for discussion between now and 11.25 am.

Frank Cook: In view of the discussions that have taken place in prior sittings of the Committee, that is not a point of order for the Chair.
 Clause 170 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 171 to 189 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15 - Wills, administration of estates and family provision: Northern Ireland

Jacqui Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 174, in schedule 15, page 239, line 18, at end insert—
'( ) In paragraph (1)(ba) (application may be made by person living as husband or wife of the deceased), after ''paragraph (1A)'' insert ''or (1B)''.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government amendments Nos. 175 to 179. 
 Government amendments Nos. 168 and 169.

Jacqui Smith: These are minor consequential amendments that ensure that references to couples living together as husband and wife are clearly understood to apply also to cohabiting same-sex couples. All the provisions being amended by the amendments also apply to spouses and have, therefore, been extended to civil partners in the Bill.
 The amendments are being tabled because of consideration of the Civil Partnership Bill in the context of the judgment given on 21 June 2004 in the case of Ghaidan v. Mendoza. In that case, the House of Lords confirmed that tenancy legislation would be incompatible with the European convention on human rights if it treated a same-sex couple less favourably than an unmarried opposite-sex couple. The Lords ruled that, to prevent such an incompatibility, the courts should interpret the reference in that legislation to persons living together as husband and wife as applying equally to same-sex couples. That is an important ruling of potentially wide application in analogous circumstances. 
 The amendments are needed to preserve the effect of the Mendoza judgment in the new context created by the introduction of civil partnership. If we do not make these drafting changes, courts and legal advisors could be unsure of Parliament's intention— 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [19 October], as amended [21 October], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Amendments proposed: No. 174, in schedule 15, page 239, line 18, at end insert— 
'( ) In paragraph (1)(ba) (application may be made by person living as husband or wife of the deceased), after ''paragraph (1A)'' insert ''or (1B)''.'.
 No. 175, in schedule 15, page 239, line 20, at end insert— 
'( ) After paragraph (1A) insert— 
 ''(1B) This paragraph applies to a person if for the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died the person was living— 
 (a) in the same household as the deceased, and 
 (b) as the civil partner of the deceased.' ''.
 No. 176, in schedule 15, page 240, line 5, at end insert— 
'In Article 5(2A) (application by person living as husband or wife of deceased: matters to which court is to have regard), in sub-paragraph (a), after ''wife'' insert ''or civil partner''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made.
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill and that clause 190 stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to and clause 190 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 - Appeal against refusal to issue civil partnership schedule

Amendments proposed: No. 44, in schedule 16, page 252, line 46, leave out sub-paragraph (3). 
 No. 45, in schedule 16, page 253, line 1, after 'under' insert 'paragraph 22 or'. 
 No. 46, in schedule 16, page 253, line 4, after 'under' insert 'paragraph 22 or'. 
 No. 47, in schedule 16, page 253, line 14, at end insert— 
Pension protection fund compensation etc. 
 PPF compensation to be included in matters to which court is to have regard 
 24A (1) The matters to which a court is to have regard under paragraph 16(2)(a) include any PPF compensation to which a civil partner is or is likely to be entitled; and, accordingly, in relation to any PPF compensation paragraph 16(2)(a)(ii) has effect as if ''in the foreseeable future'' were omitted. 
 (2) The matters to which a court is to have regard under paragraph 16(2)(h) include any PPF compensation which, because of the making of a dissolution or nullity order, a civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring entitlement to. 
 (3) In this Part ''PPF compensation'' means compensation payable under— 
 (a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (pension protection), or 
 (b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. 
 Assumption of responsibility by PPF Board in paragraph 20(2) cases 
 24B (1) This paragraph applies to an order under Part 1 so far as it includes provision made by virtue of paragraph 20(2) which— 
 (a) imposed requirements on the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme for which the Board has assumed responsibility, and 
 (b) was made before the trustees or managers received the transfer notice. 
 (2) From the time the trustees or managers of the scheme receive the transfer notice, the order has effect— 
 (a) except in descriptions of case prescribed by regulations, with the modifications set out in sub-paragraph (3), and 
 (b) with such other modifications as may be prescribed by regulations. 
 (3) The modifications are that— 
 (a) references in the order to the trustees or managers of the scheme have effect as references to the Board, and 
 (b) references in the order to any pension or lump sum to which the civil partner with pension rights is or may become entitled under the scheme have effect as references to any PPF compensation to which that person is or may become entitled in respect of the pension or lump sum. 
 Assumption of responsibility by PPF Board in paragraph 20(5) cases 
 24C (1) This paragraph applies to an order under Part 1 if— 
 (a) it includes provision made by virtue of paragraph 20(5) which requires the civil partner with pension rights to exercise his right of commutation under an occupational pension scheme to any extent, and 
 (b) before the requirement is complied with the Board has assumed responsibility for the scheme. 
 (2) From the time the trustees or managers of the scheme receive the transfer notice, the order has effect with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations. 
 Lump sums: power to modify paragraph 21 in respect of assessment period 
 24D Regulations may modify paragraph 21 in its application to an occupational pension scheme during an assessment period in relation to the scheme. 
 Assumption of responsibility by the Board not to affect power of court to vary order etc. 
 24E (1) This paragraph applies where the court makes, in relation to an occupational pension scheme— 
 (a) a pension sharing order, or 
 (b) an order including provision made by virtue of paragraph 20(2) or(5). 
 (2) If the Board subsequently assumes responsibility for the scheme, that does not affect— 
 (a) the powers of the court under paragraph 38 to vary or discharge the order or to suspend or revive any provision of it; 
 (b) on an appeal, the powers of the appeal court to affirm, reinstate, set aside or vary the order. 
 Regulations 
 24F Regulations may make such consequential modifications of any provision of, or made by virtue of, this Schedule as appear to the Lord Chancellor necessary or expedient to give effect to the provisions of this Part. 
 24G (1) In this Part ''regulations'' means regulations made by the Lord Chancellor. 
 (2) A power to make regulations under this Part is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I.1979/1573(N.I.12)). 
 (3) Regulations under this Part are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c.36) applies accordingly. 
 Interpretation 
 24H (1) In this Part— 
 ''assessment period'' means— 
 (a) an assessment period within the meaning of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (pension protection), or 
 (b) an equivalent period under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation; 
 ''the Board'' means the Board of the Pension Protection Fund; 
 ''the civil partner with pension rights'' has the meaning given by paragraph 24(1); 
 ''occupational pension scheme'' has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (c.49); 
 ''transfer notice'' has the same meaning as in— 
 (a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the 2004 Act, or 
 (b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation. 
 (2) References in this Part to the Board assuming responsibility for a scheme are to the Board assuming responsibility for the scheme in accordance with— 
 (a) Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the 2004 Act (pension protection), or 
 (b) corresponding Northern Ireland legislation.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill, and that schedule 17 be the Seventeenth schedule to the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 2

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 16, as amended, and schedule 17 agreed to.

Schedule 18 - Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership

Amendments proposed: No. 48, in schedule 18, page 296, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert— 
'(4) The matters to which the court is to have regard under sub-paragraph (3)(a), so far as relating to paragraph 16(2)(a) of Schedule 16 (regard to be had to financial resources), include— 
 (a) any benefits under a pension arrangement which either of the civil partners has or is likely to have, and 
 (b) any PPF compensation to which a civil partner is or is likely to be entitled, 
 (whether or not in the foreseeable future). 
 (4A) The matters to which the court is to have regard under sub-paragraph (3)(a), so far as relating to paragraph 16(2)(h) of Schedule 16 (regard to be had to benefits that cease to be acquirable), include— 
 (a) any benefits under a pension arrangement which, because of the dissolution or annulment of the civil partnership, one of the civil partners will lose the chance of acquiring, and 
 (b) any PPF compensation which, because of the making of the dissolution or nullity order, a civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring entitlement to.'.
 Government amendments Nos. 49 to 51.—[Jacqui Smith.] 
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the Eighteenth schedule to the Bill, that clauses 191 to 199 stand part of the Bill, that schedule 19 be the Nineteenth schedule to the Bill, that clause 200 stand part of the Bill and that schedule 20 be the Twentieth schedule to the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to, clauses 191 to 199 ordered to stand part of the Bill, schedule 19 agreed to, clause 200 ordered to stand part of the Bill and schedule 20 agreed to.

Clause 201 - Fatal accidents claims

Amendments proposed: No. 168, in clause 201, page 96, line 17, at end insert— 
'( ) In sub-paragraph (b)(iii) of Article 2(2), after ''wife'' insert ''or civil partner''.'.
 No. 169, in clause 201, page 96, line 34, at end insert— 
'( ) In Article 5 (assessment of damages), in paragraph (3A), after ''wife'' insert ''or civil partner''.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Question put, That clause 201, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and that clauses 202 and 203 stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 201, as amended, and clauses 202 and 203 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 204 - Meaning of ''overseas relationship''

Amendment proposed: No. 66, in clause 204, page 98, line 36, after 'Act)' insert 'with a responsible authority'.—[Jacqui Smith.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That clause 204, as amended, stand part of the Bill, and that clause 205 stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 204, as amended, and clause 205 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 21 - Meaning of overseas relationship: specified relationships

Amendment proposed: No. 76, in schedule 21, page 315, line 10, at end insert— 
'Canada: Nova Scotia 
 domestic partnership 
 Canada: Quebec 
 civil union'. 
 —[Jacqui Smith.] 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Motion made, and Question put, That schedule 21, as amended, be the Twenty-first schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 206 - The general conditions

Amendments proposed: No. 67, in clause 206, page 99, line 24, at end insert 'and'. 
 No. 68, in clause 206, page 99, line 27, leave out from 'married' to end of line 30.—[Jacqui Smith.] 
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, and clause 207 stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clauses 206, as amended, and clause 207 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 208 - The same-sex requirement

Amendments proposed: No. 69, in clause 208, page 100, line 14, leave out from 'if)' to 'one' in line 15 and insert 
', at the time mentioned in section 207(2)— 
 (a)'. 
 No. 70, in clause 208, page 100, line 25, at end insert— 
'( ) Nothing in this section prevents the exercise of any enforceable Community right.'.—[Jacqui Smith.]
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, and clauses 209 to 228 stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 208, as amended, and clauses 209 to 228 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 229 - Supplementary provisions relating to recognition of dissolution etc.

Amendments proposed: No. 71, in clause 229, page 110, line 13, at end insert— 
'( ) applying sections 227 and 228 and subsection (1) with modifications in relation to any country whose territories have different systems of law in force in matters of dissolution, annulment or legal separation; 
 ( ) applying sections 227 and 228 with modifications in relation to— 
 (i) an overseas dissolution, annulment or legal separation in the case of an overseas relationship (or an apparent or alleged overseas relationship); 
 (ii) any case where a civil partner is domiciled in a country or territory whose law does not recognise legal relationships between two people of the same sex;'.
 No. 234, in clause 229, page 110, line 14, leave out 'annulment' and insert 
'dissolution, annulment or legal separation'.
 No. 72, in clause 229, page 110, line 17, after 'country' insert 'or territory'. 
 No. 73, in clause 229, page 110, line 18, after 'country' insert 'or territory'. 
 No. 74, in clause 229, page 110, line 20, after 'country' insert 'or territory'. 
 No. 75, in clause 229, page 110, line 21, leave out paragraph (d).—[Jacqui Smith.] 
 Question put, That the amendments be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Motion made, and Question put, that clause 229, as amended, and clauses 230 to 237 stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 229, as amended, and clauses 230 to 237 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Twelve o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.